The Way Of The Whig Party
Will Republicans go the way of the Whig Party? Well, we're not really going to answer that question in any meaningful way today, we're going to instead focus on the question itself. Because this question isn't really all that apt a parallel to draw in the first place. Most people today just use "go the way of the Whig Party" as an amusing way to say "disappear as a national political party." But a truer parallel to history would be to ask the question: "Will today's Republicans revert back to being the Whig Party?" Or, perhaps: "Will the Tea Party eventually go the way of the Whig Party?"
Whigs were born from political hatred, with a major conspiracy theory to help things along. One of the precursors to the Whig Party was the Anti-Mason Party of the 1820s. They were a one-issue bunch, organized against the conspiracy of Masons which they believed were running the United States government. To be fair to them, most of the leaders of the day (from all political beliefs) were indeed Masons. The Anti-Mason Party's first presidential candidate was even an ex-Mason -- showing how tough it was to find anyone in politics who was pure in their anti-Mason credentials.
But the unifying concept of the Whig Party of the 1830s was even more simple: an overriding hatred of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson, for all his flaws, was a strong and popular president, whose White House campaigns ushered in not just a new way of campaigning in American politics, but the second age of national political parties. Before Jackson won, there was only really a single party, as the Federalists had disappeared entirely by 1820. During the 1824 and 1828 elections, the factions were known by their leaders' names: both "pro-Jackson" and "pro-Adams" (John Quincy, that is).
After Jackson was elected, he was portrayed by his opponents (led by Henry Clay and, later, Daniel Webster) as an imperial president -- one anti-Jackson flyer called him "King Andrew I." This led his opponents to begin calling themselves "Whigs" (the earlier Whigs in America had been the anti-royalists, so the party name itself was an anti-Jackson joke or insult). The party didn't agree on much, but they did agree that pretty much everything Jackson did as president was wrong. This was the glue which kept a large number of very different factions together, in fact. Sound familiar? The defeat of Henry Clay in 1832 (when Jackson was re-elected) signified the real birth of the Whig Party.
The Whigs only lasted roughly two decades, though. Being anti-Jackson was fine for the 1830s, even after Jackson was replaced by his vice president Martin Van Buren. But once Whigs started actually winning office in the 1840s, the divisions within their ranks became too big to ignore. William Henry Harrison was the first Whig president, followed into office one month later (after his untimely death) by John Tyler -- who promptly vetoed the entire Whig economic plan. After losing the White House in the next election, in 1848 the Whigs again won with Zachary Taylor. But he was a war hero, and the Whigs had been anti-war (with Mexico) up to that point. Bad luck struck again when Taylor died in 1850, to be replaced by Millard Fillmore. Fillmore pushed the Compromise of 1850 through, which wound up destroying the Whig Party over the issue of slavery, among other things (the deaths of Clay and Webster in 1852 were also large factors). There was a brief period where the factions left over all formed their own parties (including the one-issue anti-immigrant "Know Nothings"), until the Republican Party would rise from the ashes, led by ex-Whig Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, it's easy to pick and choose when drawing historical metaphors. While there are similarities to today, the situation was quite different and the parallels are in no way perfect. The Whig/Democrat two-party system was preceded by a single-party system. The Whigs were not a faction of the Republicans, the Republicans started off as the northern faction of the Whigs. And the Democratic Party was also split asunder by the question of slavery at the same time, with Northern and Southern wings. At least at the beginning, the Whigs were no more than another personality-based party like the pro-Adams faction which preceded it, and might have been known today as the "pro-Clay" party if someone hadn't come up with the "Whig" joke. The Tea Party of today didn't form around one dominant person, although since then, several have had some degree of success at appearing to take its reins (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, and of course Ted Cruz all spring to mind, among others).
But similarities remain. The Tea Party has one thing that they all agree upon, almost religiously: everything Barack Obama does or stands for is wrong. This was the same motivating force behind the Whigs, except with Andrew Jackson's name in there instead. But instead of Tea Party factions disagreeing when they achieve power, we've got a different dynamic today. The Tea Party is the faction, and the Republican Party existed before they arrived. The question that anyone who uses the phrase "go the way of the Whigs" today is asking is who will remain in the future?
Will the Tea Party complete their takeover of the Republican Party? Will moderate Republican officeholders start fleeing to form a third party, become Independents, or even join the Democratic Party as a new "conservative Democrats" wing? Right now, the Tea Party seems to be riding high. They've got John Boehner dancing like a puppet, and are definitely pulling his strings backstage. They've got many of the older Republican politicians terrified of them (of being "primaried" by a Tea Party purist). Finally some older-school Republicans are speaking out against the Tea Party extremists, but it's been a timid sort of pushback so far.
The Tea Party doesn't have the numbers to dominate the Republican Party in Congress, but they are dominating them ideologically nonetheless. The tail is indeed wagging the dog, for all to see. But I can't help but wonder if the Tea Party's greatest triumph will lead to its downfall. If they complete their purge of the Republican Party and truly do get elected in numbers greater than the "establishment Republicans," then they may wind up in total control of the Republican Party, but it may be a much smaller party. Of course, as I said, I'm not going to predict the actual chances of this happening, but the possibility is worth exploring for the sake of argument.
There are other scenarios, of course. The Tea Party could lose so much support from the voters that "being primaried" no longer becomes a threat to sitting Republican politicians. If the extremism and single-mindedness of the Tea Party begins to be repudiated by the public -- so much so that politicians stop being proud of being called a "Tea Partier," say -- then perhaps the historical parallel will fit, but then the correct application will be: "The Tea Party went the way of the Whigs."
But if the ultimate Tea Party-domination of the Republicans does happen, the Tea Partiers would be in full control of the "Republican" brand, and it'll be a decidedly smaller tent than it was previously. As Tea Party extremism is shown in all its glory to the American voters, the Tea Partiers don't seem to care that they're turning a lot of people away from voting Republican. That's what purges are all about. The purity of the cause trumps all else -- up to and including actually getting elected.
But as a direct result of the Tea Party staking out ever-more-extreme positions, Democrats could start picking up seats in Congress. Old-school Republicans may give up on the GOP and attempt their own third-party or Independent group, which could split the vote in some very conservative districts and allow Democrats to win a general election. The Tea Party, freshly purged and pure as the driven snow, would likely be just as happy to be a vocal opposition in Congress rather than having all the problems which running a house brings. It's always easier to be in the minority than to govern, after all. You just have to be against stuff. Which the Tea Party excels at, of course.
This is why it is amusing when people say "the Republican Party could go the way of the Whigs." Because they're being more accurate than they know. Rather than just signifying the generic death of an American political brand, it also would signify a movement which is exactly the opposite of what happened in the 1800s. Rather than a party with an abiding hatred of the president being driven to its death by factionalism, only to see a much stronger national party with a solid platform emerge, what would happen today shuffles the deck in a different way. If the Tea Party captures the "Republican Party" brand completely, then we will see a strong national party with a solid platform be consumed by a faction of purists with not much more tying them together than an abiding hatred of the president. So, yes, the cycle will be complete, but not quite in the way people usually mean. The Republican Party will "go the way" of the Whigs, by becoming modern-day Whigs -- a party united in their opposition to what they see as an imperial president. It's a pretty sure bet that they'll be able transfer this hatred to President Hillary Clinton without much trouble, too.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Wow ... the rebranding efforts sure have been a mess.
At the recent Values Voter Summit, Ted Cruz just won the straw poll, while Marco Rubio, the Senator who was supposed to woo Hispanics and help the GOP rebrand was largely ignored.
It's a shame too because his speech actually focused on jobs and the economy. The folks at the Values Voter Summit seemed like they'd rather focus on being anti-Obama or anti-Muslim (see Ron Paul's speech).
I guess I shouldn't expect too much from the Values Voter summit, yet still it's sad that groups like this still hold so much sway.
-David
The Whig/Democrat two-party system was preceded by a single-party system.
I would call it a one-party episode in a two-party system.
The Tea Party is the faction, and the Republican Party existed before they arrived.
But was that 1948, 1964, or 1971?
or even join the Democratic Party as a new "conservative Democrats" wing?
New? What's wrong with the old ones?
We do seem to love comparing the current political climate to the pre-civil war era. I don't think that it really applies personally, but there are a few parallels and many more things that just blow the model. For example, you forgot to mention that the Whigs were a party of merchants and internal improvements. Advocating for canals, tariffs, and the growth of a market economy as the better roads led to farmers being able to sell their goods on a much bigger stage. So they weren't just Anti-Jackson, they did have a platform and constructive plans.
Also one thing that makes it much harder to make this analogy is the issues of regionalism and slavery. Parties in the pre-civil war era often had cross-regional appeal. The current Red State/Blue state divide and the accompanying regional blocs did not exist in that time period. If you're curious go to wikipedia and check the election results, you'll see some maps that look decidedly odd to us. Also there is no single issue like slavery on the national scene at the moment. Slavery's ability to raise passions to the point of bloodshed is unprecedented in modern politics, despite the current level of rhetoric.
Also, I would say that you underestimate the level of anti-republicanism in the Tea Party movement. While the election of Barack Obama might have been the excuse, in many ways the Tea Party is revolting against the Bush Administration. Bush's essentially centrist policy of deficit spending is anathema to the Tea Party. The focus on primary challenges to centrist and establishment Republicans, the use of rhetoric like rino's, all speaks to the fact that Republicans can't take the base's votes for granted and then just go off and do whatever they want. This makes even more sense when you consider how unpopular Bush was and is. While I don't want to put words in people's mouths, I bet Tea Partiers would say that if Bush had been a REAL conservative, he wouldn't have been such a train-wreck. And maybe we'd have John McCain as president.
YoYo -
Well, while I agree largely with what you said, while Henry Clay was a big fan of the "American Plan" (internal improvements and suchlike), when the Whigs coalesced, it wasn't as big an issue as the Second National Bank, for instance.
The Whigs did manage to stitch together some coalitions behind their agendas (plural), mostly they just agreed (at the start anyway) that Jackson was the root of all evil.
-CW
I guess I shouldn't expect too much from the Values Voter summit
{{{cough}}} {{cough}} Netroots Nation {{cough}}
:D
Michale
CW,
I think reports of the demise of the Republican party are silly. After all this is the party that millionaires and billionaires choose to throw money at in hopes of getting a return on their investment in the form of large tax cuts. Given that America is barely a democracy because of the amount of money involved in your politics, writing off the party that sells out most to big money is silly.
However, your Tea Party analogy may be more apt. The Tea Party has offered nothing to Republicans outside of one election in 2010 (which would've swung heavy Republican anyway). In fact since then they've actually cost them seats and almost certainly cost them control of the Senate.
I saw some analysis from Sam Wang at Princeton Election Consortium which showed that if the election was held today, it would swing to Democrats by 50 seats. Yes FIFTY.
It is for this reason that in the past few weeks you've seen the Tea Party morons actually starting to get Primaried themselves by establishment candidates.
Whilst the election is not being held and Americans have horrific short-term memory loss, this gives Democrats a good platform to build from and if the House swings Democrat you can bet the Republicans will be quick to throw out the morons should they cost them the House (after pretty much costing them the Senate last year).
Bush's essentially centrist policy of deficit spending is anathema to the Tea Party.
I disagree. Firstly, cutting taxes for the wealthy (replacing it with debt) is hardly a centrist policy. Secondly, they, like all Republicans, only care about deficit spending all of a sudden when Democrats are President. Just look at their idol - Reagan - who was the biggest deficit creator of any President in history... Reagan did exactly what Bush did - cut taxes on the wealthy and rack up MASSIVE deficits (the biggest ever seen). Yet he is still seen as God-like to most Tea Partiers. Both Clinton and Obama have faced retarded push-back on the deficits they INHERITED from the cut-tax-and-borrow Republican Governments...
cw - I did not know 90 percent of this fascinating backs story. Thanks for "Whigging Out on us"
Given that America is barely a democracy because of the amount of money involved in your politics, writing off the party that sells out most to big money is silly.
In many ways, it's why they're so confident even in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
They believe that they can shake the Etch-a-Sketch come election time with enough money.
Maybe they're right but we're starting to see situations where people don't believe the marketing. This shutdown is a great example. Now if we could just ignore the marketing come election season and start electing people who believe in better economic ideas.
-David
http://www.grantland.com/fivethirtyeight/story/_/id/9802433/nate-silver-us-government-shutdown
That's Nate Silver weighing in, he's saying what I've been thinking. That the Republicans have inherent advantages going into 2014, and that their actions have squandered it. Will Democrats retake the House? probably not, but who knows?
Deficit spending has been used by every president since FDR. Tax cuts aside, government debt is very centrist. It speaks to how far RIGHT the Republicans have gone that this is suddenly an issue.
That's Nate Silver weighing in, he's saying what I've been thinking.
Thanks, YYTA ... nice article by Nate Silver. He makes a great point about the ideological divides and gerrymandering eliminating swing districts.
Here in Ohio, Obama won the national election roughly 50-48% over Romney, yet 12 out 16 seats went to Republicans because of gerrymandered districts. *sigh*
We would likely have to see consistent Democratic gains over the next 10-20 years in order to make significant inroads in the House.
The shutdown might have some impact, but one of the main reasons Republicans are fighting so hard now is that it's not a Congressional election year.
-David
You guys should read this: http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/12/a-difference-with-nate-silver-not-exactly/
In a completely unrelated issue, I thought I'd throw this out here...
How does healthcare in America work when you're having a baby? Do you have to make an insurance claim? What if you don't have insurance - I presume you're covered by Medicare? So will this mean that you pay higher premiums (because you're making a claim) because you decided to have a baby?? And how much does having a baby cost??
Sorry for the complete change of subject, but I have a friend who just had a baby in DC and it got me thinking about this. I have lived a pretty sheltered life - living in New Zealand, UK, China and now Canada this is not something I've ever had to consider (well China would be the exception as the only one of these countries with a healthcare situation similar to America lol)...
The first comment in the link I just posted is pretty interesting too:
"Yeah, this surprised me about Nate. Benghazi, the IRS and Syria were/are all essentially non-scandals (trumped up by the GOP) that do not affect the average American’s daily life. However, this shutdown, and the impending credit default, DOES. THAT is the difference, and I am surprised Nate was quick to blow this off."
"Yeah, this surprised me about Nate. Benghazi, the IRS and Syria were/are all essentially non-scandals
The **ONLY** reason they are "non scandals" is because there is a DEM POTUS...
Any of those "non-scandals" are ten times more serious than Abu Ghraib...
But, because the POTUS has a '-D' after his name, the MSM covers for Obama...
Michale
Yeh the don't forget the international media as well Michale. They're in on it too... GLUG GLUG GLUG MORE KOOL AID.
Yes exactly Michale, the IRS double-checking political groups to see if they qualify for the tax status they are seeking is way worse than torturing and abusing prisoners.
You guys should read this.
I am both hopeful and trying to make sure it happens.
That aside, according to the NY Times, with districts drawn as they were for 2012, Democrats would have had to have won the popular vote by 7% to win control of Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Of course w/ the current Republican trajectory, this may not be as hard as we think.
This is also why Republicans keep trying to game the rules more in their favor than the current 7% edge they enjoy.
I'll see what I can find out about the baby question. Not an area of expertise for me personally.
-David
[16] - false equivalencies are a main tool of the echo chamber. This and anecdotal evidence (rather than data/reality based evidence) really build up the hate....
Thanks David, I hadnt ever considered this issue before. I guess I should be thankful for living in so many modern, civilised countries that provide fundamental human rights... Another thing to be thanful for this week during Canadian thanksgiving ;-)
Yes exactly Michale, the IRS double-checking political groups to see if they qualify for the tax status they are seeking is way worse than torturing and abusing prisoners.
Wow.. So much ignorance and BS in one post..
No offense, YoYo..
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
-Subcommander Tal, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident.
Abu Ghraib was nothing more than college hazing. There was no documented cases of torture at Abu Ghraib..
As for the IRS, it wasn't that the IRS was double checking PACs..
It's that the IRS was double checking PACs based on their political ideology. And the fact that they were intentionally holding up applications of groups that opposed Obama..
Again, another perfect example of ya'alls political bigotry.
If the IRS scandal had happened under a GOP POTUS, ya'all would have gone ballistic.. Hysterically so..
But, by all means. Continue to slurp the Obamabot kool-aid...
You DO realize that when we finally have a GOP POTUS, ya'all have utterly and completely decimated any moral or ethical high ground ya'all might have enjoyed...
You DO realize that, right???
Michale
[16] - false equivalencies are a main tool of the echo chamber. This and anecdotal evidence (rather than data/reality based evidence) really build up the hate....
Yes, it does..
Amongst the LEFT as well as the Right.. The recent spat of accusations of terrorism strictly because of political disagreements is a perfect example.
It's a by-product of nearly religious fanaticism exhibited amongst those enslaved by political ideology..
Michale
No I'm pretty sure it's a by-product of people extremely angry that a bunch of morons would shut the Government down and risk a massive recession because they weren't getting their own way...
Don't take my word on it. Here are some quotes from REPUBLICANS about Republicans:
- "Nothing positive will be achieved by prolonging this shutdown any longer, or crossing the debt limit threshold. It’s time for my colleagues to face reality."
- "This party is going nuts. So many people I run into who are normal people -- and I hate to use that term -- they just can't understand what's going on. On this one they can't even see both sides. They just think Republicans are crazy. That's it. They see no justification for any of this"
- "I would just say to any member of the Congress now, what is your oath? What is your reason for being here? Are you going to stop our ability to reopen the government forever and to honor our obligations come the 17th? I can understand fighting for your cause, but there comes a point when you have an obligation to your country as the whole"
- "Republicans have got to wave the white flag and say, 'We fought a good fight and now it's over.' They cannot shut the government down and then bring about a default. We cannot do it."
- "It's pretty hard to go home and say I shut the government down for two weeks to get a two-year delay on the medical devices tax, I would just tell you, in any case, this doesn't seem like what we went into this fight trying to get, I just seriously question what we're getting out of it."
- "The sooner this is over, the better for us, guys"
etc etc etc
More fun stuff:
It turns out that if you have a major political party arguing that a government debt default wouldn't be that big a deal, it makes people start to wonder just how creditworthy your government really is.
That's the lesson of the decision late Tuesday by Fitch, one of the three major credit-rating firms, to put the U.S. government on "Ratings Watch Negative" for a possible downgrade of the nation's AAA credit rating.
Hey michty. Here's some notes from a friend of mine about medical care when you have a baby in the U.S.
From Laura ...
It depends on your income. For low income women, many will qualify for Medicaid when they're pregnant even if they didn't as a "single" person. For those who don't qualify, some hospitals have clinics that operate on a sliding scale; both Good Sam and University do. The Planned Parenthood location in Hamilton used to offer prenatal care because there wasn't much other coverage available, like there is in Cincinnati. And all hospitals have to accept a pregnant woman who presents in labor-it's the law. So prenatal care is available, albeit in a sort of patchwork system that isn't necessarily easy to negotiate. But that doesn't mean you won't have to pay something for it, and I'm sure there are some women who don't go, or skip some appointments, because they can't afford even the reduced fee.
Even for someone with insurance, though, it's still expensive to have a baby. I paid over $3000 out of pocket when I had Nico, and that was for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery where neither of us needed extra care.
Cheers,
-David
First of all, thanks David!
Second of all, holy fucking shit. I had absolutely no idea that something so simple and straight-forward in almost every country could be made so complex and ridiculous. That is incredibly sad. I had Googled and read the average 'cost' was $3.5k (I use the word cost loosely as I feel extremely sad applying the word to continuing our species). I just had no idea that people would actually pay >$0 to have a baby. I am gobsmacked.
Second of all, holy fucking shit. I had absolutely no idea that something so simple and straight-forward in almost every country could be made so complex and ridiculous. That is incredibly sad.
Yeah, I know, right?!
I have to say I was tremendously surprised myself. Great question to ask but unbelievably disappointing answer.
The "free" market here in America has lead to exploitation and high costs that others worldwide would find appalling. Unbelievable that we have the highest costs of any country in the world. Asymmetries of information is I believe part of it. The other part according to an economist I read is the nature of healthcare. It's something that you often can't go without. So in a "free" market where costs are hard for average folks to determine, the opportunity is there to charge exorbitant prices.
I mean, what's your option if you're pregnant for example? Risk delivering the baby on your couch?
-David
I mean, what's your option if you're pregnant for example? Risk delivering the baby on your couch?
Exactly, just unbelievably pathetic and sad. Or I can imagine some couples really wanting to have a child but not being able to for financial reasons? So sad.
Also given the irrational hatred for abortions on the right-wing, it is pretty pathetic that they don't support reforming the current 'free market' based healthcare system when it probably promotes these.
I guess I never even thought about what exactly the 'market' for healthcare is until now. When you consider that this 'market' includes having a baby, any emergency treatment, care in case your baby is ill in anyway, treatment for cancer (and other life threatening diseases), accidents and recovery, diseases from old age, etc etc etc - it's pretty pathetic that some people out there believe things these should still be considered a 'market' rather than a fundamental human right.
Like I said before, in the week of Canadian thanksgiving I'm so thankful I've never in my entire life - despite growing up in a very poor family - ever had to consider the 'cost of treatment' or 'the effect on my premiums' as a factor in the decision of whether or not I should go see a doctor...
Happy Canadian thanksgiving, michty!
Costs do have to be considered, even when it's medical services. Ironically, the "market" system in the US seems to do worse at considering them than any other system in the world.
Well when you have a Corporate monopoly over a 'market' which requires certain guaranteed 'market' activities like babies being born, emergency surgery (etc) then you're just opening yourself up to enormous costs as Corporations rape the system...
TheStig [7] -
Bonus points for using "Whigging out"... heh.
:-)
There's a correct term I was itching to use in this article, but it never seemed to fit: "Whiggery." Its equivalent today would be "Republicanism" maybe. Here's how it would appear in a sentence:
"Of course, West Coast Whiggery is of a somewhat different mind than what the Whigs on the East Coast think."
It's kind of a collective term. Anyway, like I said, couldn't fit it in...
-CW
http://www.ibtimes.com/irs-tea-party-scandal-new-documents-show-irs-targeted-progressives-too-1392677
Again and again and again, you have departed from reality and facts. Unlike you, I get reputable journalism to back up my position, the last thing you posted was a fox opinion piece of all things.
Abu Ghraib was college hazing? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Things that happened at Abu Graib.
Urinating on detainees
Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not heal properly afterward
Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
Sodomization of detainees with a baton
Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
Also rape, of men, women and boys.
And they tortured a man to death. Manadel al-Jamadi
How can you make light of such a situation Michale?
Pffft clearly you don't know Michale. His response will be 'the left does all those things every day, I read it on Fox' ;)
How can you make light of such a situation Michale?
Easy... It was nothing more than college hazing..
Further... Most of those guys either have killed Americans or had a hand in killing Americans..
Things that happened at Abu Graib.
Bullshit...
Provide documentation...
Preferably not some Left Wing rag...
As for the "hate"...
Has any Republican referred to the Left as "terrorists" simply for a political disagreement??
Didn't think so...
Michale
Has any Republican referred to the Left as "terrorists" simply for a political disagreement??
Ann Coulter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-05-01/news/0405010122_1_prisoner-military-intelligence-cells
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/13/iraq.usa
Next link is NSFW
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html
And that's the result of ten minutes of research Michale. All of these confirm and add to the very short list I compiled earlier. The biggest coup is the findlaw link, an official report detailing the abuses and torture that occurred at Abu Graib.
I swear next you're going to try and tell me My Lai was done by Russians. America and Americans have committed atrocities and war crimes, just acknowledge it. Further, no gives a shit about your "scandals" because any rational person can see they're 99% echo chamber bullshit. Wanna see a real scandal? Here you go.
WARNING! NSFW!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/photo-gallery/mylai-massacre-evidence/
Michale -
Bush's Education Secretary called the teachers' union "terrorists" back around 2006 or 2007. I can look it up, if you'd like. This was a LOT closer to 9/11, and the effect was pretty frightening.
To say nothing of all the "traitor!" talk that Republicans engaged in at the start of the Iraq war, to describe the anti-war folks.
-CW
Bush's Education Secretary called the teachers' union "terrorists" back around 2006 or 2007. I can look it up, if you'd like. This was a LOT closer to 9/11, and the effect was pretty frightening.
And what was the response from the Left over it? I imagine it was pretty immediate and definitive, eh?? :D
To say nothing of all the "traitor!" talk that Republicans engaged in at the start of the Iraq war, to describe the anti-war folks.
That's a whole nother ballgame..
But consider this. I would imagine you (and everyone else here) were pretty bothered by such attacks, eh??
So, why emulate the Republicans in their nastiness??
Why on earth would Democrats want to sink so low to THAT level??
Michale
YoYoTheAssyrian -
Just a reminder, if you post comments with multiple links then it will be held for moderation (read: "whenever I read all the new comments, which could be a while").
I have to do this to protect against comment spam, sorry.
-CW